Hop substitutes ca 1885

Today's Southby text is on the topic of hop substitutes.

I was trying to recall when hop substitutes were legalised. I know it was before 1880. Just after the excise tax on hops was dropped, I think it was. 1860's or 1870's. If I remember, I'll look it up.

I have occasionally seen hop substitutes in logs. Whitbread used them in the 1940's, presumably because they couldn't get sufficient hops. It didn't last for long.

"Bitters other than hops, commonly known as " hop substitutes," are a class of brewing material which, while deprecating the unnecessary use of, I am not prepared to absolutely condemn, provided always that only such substances are used as are at least as wholesome as hops themselves. Of course the use of any injurious bitter is as wicked as it is utterly illegal, and any one guilty of such an abominable practice deserves to be visited with the severest penalties, but as long as only wholesome bitters are used the public are in no ways defrauded. It is a mere matter of taste, and if they do not like the flavour of the beer, they will quickly compel the brewer, in these days of universal competition, to revert to the use of hops only, or if he persists in brewing beer that the public taste objects to, the ruin of his trade will be the sufficient and appropriate penalty.

Hops, from a dietetic point of view, are a wholesome tonic bitter, but with decidedly narcotic properties; quassia is likewise a wholesome tonic bitter, with slight narcotic properties. Beer, therefore, in which the bitter is partially derived from quassia is quite as wholesome as if hops alone had been used in brewing it. Whether the quassia imparts as pleasant a flavour, is a matter for the consumer to decide. If he likes the flavour of quassia as well as that of hops he is not defrauded in any way when he buys beer bittered with quassia, it is just as wholesome, nutritious, and tonic, as the beer bittered with hops. The same quantity of the quassia beer will not make him quite so sleepy as the hop beer, but that can scarcely be considered a disadvantage. If, on the other hand, the consumer does not like the flavour imparted by quassia, so well as that imparted by hops, he can purchase his beer from a brewer who uses hops only, and he has thus the power in his own hands of compelling the brewer to use hops and not quassia, if he prefers the former.

This question of the substitution of other bitters for hops is often argued as if it was analogous to the admixture of chicory with coffee, but the resemblance is only superficial, for hops and other wholesome tonic bitters are of about the same average dietetic value, whereas chicory has none of the special and valuable properties of coffee, and its unacknowledged admixture with coffee is a distinct and palpable fraud.

The following is a list of the principal wholesome bitters which may be honestly substituted for a portion of the hops used in the copper. There is no known substance which can be substituted for hops in " dry hopping."

Quassia 1 lb. equal in bittering power to 16 lbs hops
Calyso 1 lb. equal in bittering power to 12 lbs hops
Chiretta 1 lb. equal in bittering power to 10 lbs hops
Gentian 1 lb. equal in bittering power to 7 lbs hops
Camomile flowers 1 lb. equal in bittering power to 5 lbs hops

Quassia, as I have already stated, is tonic and slightly narcotic
Calyso is a very wholesome bitter, non-narcotic and with a slight stimulating action on the liver. Beer brewed with a proportion of Calyso is more wholesome to most people than that in which hops only have been used.

Chiretta, a very wholesome liver tonic, perfectly nonnarcotic

Gentian, a wholesome tonic bitter.

Camomile flowers are a wholesome tonic, with slightly aperient properties.

As none of the above bitter substances contain any appreciable amount of tannin, this substance must also be added at the rate of one pound of good soluble tannic acid, for every 100 pounds of hops substituted by the other bitters.

Notwithstanding the wholesome character of the above substances, I cannot advise brewers to use them when hops are at a moderate price. The public undoubtedly prefer a beer bittered with good hops only, and therefore brewers who confine themselves to the use of hops, are pretty sure to compete successfully with those who use a proportion of other bitters. When, however, hops rise to an extravagant price, a few good hops used with a proportion of the other bitters, will enable a brewer to produce a beer which the public will prefer both to that brewed with very inferior hops, and also to beers brewed with good hops only, but reduced in gravity to such a point as will allow of a fair profit.

As a general rule, not more than one-third of the hops should be substituted by other bitters, and certainly one-half the usual quantity of hops, and other bitters substituted for the other half, is the extreme proportion in which it is safe to use the latter.

There is one aspect of this question which brewers should always bear in mind, and that is, that none of the other wholesome bitters have anything like the same antiseptic power as hops, and consequently that a beer brewed with the latter will, if other things are equal, keep better than a beer in which other bitters have been substituted for a portion of the hops. Of the substances I have enumerated, calyso comes nearest to hops in its antiseptic properties.

The so-called hop substitutes and hop supplements, are all preparations or mixtures of one or more of the above bitter substances." (Source: "A systematic handbook of practical brewing", by E.R. Southby, 1885, pages 259-262.)

That's it for Southby for the moment. Unless I get desperate again.

Caramel in 1885

That's right. Even more stuff from Southby. This time about that eternal favourite of British brewers: caramel.

"Caramel, also commonly known as burnt sugar or colouring, constitutes one of the best materials for increasing the colour of ales, and a proportion of it may be used with advantage in black beers, especially when a brown head is required. For ales it is, I think, a better colouring than black malt, as it gives both a better colour and a pleasanter flavour than the latter, and if properly prepared it can be added to the finished beer, which is often a great convenience.

Caramel is easily prepared from any sugar, by carefully and slowly heating it in a cast-iron pan to about 4000 F 400° F and maintaining that temperature for a short time. It is then allowed to cool to about 230° F, and water is added, very slowly and cautiously at first, to prevent boiling over. Enough water must be added to convert it into a syrup, which can then be used as required.

Care must be taken that the temperature does not at any time exceed 420°, as immediately above that point the sugar gives off torrents of inflammable vapours, and is rapidly and entirely carbonised, so that there is not only the certainity of destroying it, but also serious risk of its bursting into flames.

For black beers intended for immediate consumption, a cheap caramel may be made by heating some of the lower qualities of cane sugar; but for ales, sugars of good quality must be used, and if the ales are required to keep for any length of time, the sugar should have been previously refined.

No beet sugar should be employed. A thoroughly converted glucose has been successfully caramalised, but is not generally so economical a material as cane sugar. If glucose is used, it should be a quality containing very little dextrine.

In making caramel great care must be taken in the heating, for if the sugar is over-heated, or the heating is continued for too long a time, a more or less insoluble modification is produced. The difficulty is to heat the sugar enough to obtain the fullest amount of colour, without producing more or less of the. insoluble modifications. There are several varieties of these caramels produced by overheating; some of them are quite insoluble, and remain as a brown deposit when the caramel syrup is drawn off from the pan, they are therefore absolutely lost, and useless to the brewer, but are not actively detrimental.

There is, however, another modification which is very troublesome and injurious. This latter caramel dissolves in the strong syrup, and gives great apparent depth of colour, but when some of the syrup is added to an ale, a cloudiness quickly makes its appearance, which for the time entirely destroys the brilliancy of the beer, and is by no means easily got rid of. The cloud produced by this caramel generally deposits after a time, but of course leaves the beer paler by several shades than it was intended to be.

For the brewer who makes his own caramel, the best rule is always to under heat it. A partially made caramel, if it has been judiciously prepared by gradual heating, with constant stirring, will not cause any cloud in the beer, and as it yields the extract value of the sugar from which it was made, there is no loss to the brewer, even if he has to use double the quantity, as compared with the stronger caramels produced by the manufacturers of that article.

It seems to me very extraordinary that so few brewers put up the pan with suitable stirrers, which is the whole plant required for making caramel. The expense of the apparatus is comparatively small, and the profit is so large that the brewer can recover the whole cost of the plant in a few months. Those brewers who make and use caramel largely, find it so profitable that they jealously guard the secret, lest their trade rivals should adopt the manufacture, and hence perhaps the reason that so little is known of it in the trade.

There are several manufacturers of caramel for sale, who offer the brewer a first-rate article, and I may here mention the caramel crystals, and powder, manufactured by Lichtenstein & Co., which is a very concentrated form of first-rate quality, and perfectly reliable as far as my experience goes. The only drawback to the use of these first-class caramels is their somewhat high price, so that it does not pay the brewer to use them, except occasionally and in small quantities. In fact, owing to the peculiar properties of this material, the brewer can always make it far cheaper than he can buy it. On the other hand a great deal of the caramel commonly sold clouds the beer, and has other objectionable properties. A short time ago I made a careful series of experiments, on the manufacture of caramel on a considerable scale, so that I can speak confidently on the practical aspects of this subject." (Source: Source: "A systematic handbook of practical brewing", by E.R. Southby, 1885, pages 256-259.)

This is great. I'm getting material for my book, educating myself and producing multiple posts. God bless you, Mr. Southby.

Let us make you fat

This is a bit off-topic, but so fun I couldn't resist posting it.

No need to buy pills to put on weight. I know a guaranteed method. Drink six bottles of St Bernardus Abt a day and watch the the pounds pile on! A Mr. R.P. of Amsterdam swears by this method. "F*ck me, I've put on another four kilos this week."


The advert appeared in "The World almanac & book of facts", 1914. Don't ask how I found it.

Cask cleaning ca 1885

More from Southby. This time about cleaning casks. It's another topic I was asked a question about that I couldn't fully answer. If I could remember who asked me, I'd now be in a position to reply. Maybe they'll read this. Or maybe not. It's not the most fascinating subject so perhaps no-one will read it. (I can feel myself nodding off as I write.)

"There are a great many arrangements, forms of apparatus, and processes for cleaning casks ; and cask washing and cleansing is a matter of vast importance to the brewer. But I am not at all sure that the most elaborate machines possess all the advantages claimed for them. The fact is that the washing and thorough cleaning of casks in a brewery is a matter that requires so much personal attention from the men employed" that elaborate machinery is to a great extent thrown away. In this, as in so many other instances, if a man has to watch a machine very carefully, he may just as well do the work by hand. I therefore doubt the utility of the mechanical cask washers, except in the case of large breweries.


When the dirty casks returned to the brewery are examined, they can be quickly divided into those which cannot be cleaned without one of the heads being taken out, and those which can be washed perfectly clean as they stand.

If the head is taken out of a cask, no machinery is required to clean it, and the greater number of those which do not require their heads removed, can be quickly cleansed by washing with hot water, and subsequent steaming. The mechanical cask washer, only effects a saving of labour on a small percentage of casks, which are rather too dirty to wash by hand without the removal of the heads, and are yet not foul enough to render that operation absolutely essential. In large breweries however these machines are no doubt useful and save some labour.

Every brewery should be provided with a sufficient number of cask steaming nozzles, and also with a large tank of water, kept up to the full boiling temperature by means of free steam. A blower and set of air nozzles for drying the casks after they have been washed and steamed, is also a most valuable apparatus, and one which is far too often omitted.

It is by no means necessary to heat the air which is blown into the casks to dry them, all that is essential is that the casks should be thoroughly heated by washing with boiling water, and steaming, and should then at once have a strong current of air forced through them, while the wood is at a high temperature.

There is a simple apparatus for washing casks, which is often useful, and is now much resorted to in breweries. I allude to that arrangement of pipes and cocks by which water and steam are admitted together into the casks, and the water thus boiled in them. The mechanical action obtained does, no doubt, assist in washing the casks, and there can be no objection to the use of this apparatus, provided it is not expected to do much more than supply boiling water in a convenient way. The casks, however, after they are thoroughly cleansed by means of this apparatus, supplemented as far as necessary by manual labour, must be steamed and dried, so that there is not after all much saving effected, as compared with washing the casks with boiling water from a tank.

Besides the above appliances every large brewery should have an iron pan, in which a solution of common washing soda can be boiled, for treating sour casks ; and also a tank into which the soda liquor can be emptied from the casks, for this liquor can be used over again for a good many times before it is necessary to renew it. The washing soda and water are first boiled in the pan, and the casks filled with the boiling hot liquor. After standing with the liquor in them for three or four hours, they are emptied into the tank, washed several times with clean water, steamed and dried. The liquor is pumped up again to the pan, by means of an iron rotary pump, boiled, and used for another lot of casks. When it becomes too foul for use it is run to waste.

Permanganate of potash is now largely used for curing stinking casks, and is very effectual, no special apparatus is, however, required for applying it.

For curing acid casks, in breweries which have no soda pan, quicklime is a cheap and effective substitute. It should be slaked with boiling water into a powder. One quart of this powder is generally enough for a barrel; the powder should be mixed with water, and introduced into the barrel, which is then filled with water, allowed to stand for at least twelve hours, and afterwards washed, steamed and dried.

It is a very good and safe plan to wash out all the casks with a little bisulphite of lime, after any of the above treatments with alkaline substances. The bisulphite should be applied shortly before steaming, and well rinsed round every part of the cask. All casks may be rinsed with bisulphite after they are taken off the steaming-nozzles, and before being placed on the dryingnozzles." (Source: Source: "A systematic handbook of practical brewing", by E.R. Southby, 1885, pages 152-155.)

Southby is my new favourite. He's bulking out the late 19th-century chapter of my book a treat. I'll let you into a little secret. My mega-book is becoming less of a publishing project and more of a handy reference for myself. At 165,000 words, it's getting too big for a book.

Brewing with oats (1943) part four

More on oats. Is anyone still listening? I thought not. Maybe a few of you are still looking at the nice labels. Can you detect a theme in my choices?

"Progress with Oats
It is satisfactory to note that the figures for the month of July disclose that for all practical purposes the target figure for the use of oats had been attained within six months of the date when the undertaking to do so was given on behalf of the industry. To determine the exact figures is a matter of some little difficulty, since one has to calculate whether brewers as a whole have used 10% less barley than they had been using hitherto for the quantity of beer brewed. In normal times the quantity of oats used in brewing was almost negligible, and was probably almost entirely limited to oatmeal stout. Indeed, until the Ministry of Food made known their desire that oats should be used to conserve barley supplies, the purchase of oats for brewing had for some time been prohibited. Since the appeal was made to brewers early in the year the figures of the use of oats have been steadily mounting once the initial experimental period had been passed. The requirement was wisely made somewhat elastic, because it was obvious that to lay down a hard and fast rule that any given percentage of oats must be used in every brew would lead to serious difficulties in some cases. Brewers were further given a free hand as to the form in which they should utilise this material, whether as malted oats, oat flakes, ground oats and so on. This has enabled such difficulties as inadequate mash tun capacity to be met in the best way possible. It is hoped that the figures for the month of August, when available, will show that the figure of 10% has been well achieved, and in the meantime the hope may be expressed that all breweries will continue to do their share towards maintaining this position so long as it is necessary in the national interest."
"The Brewing Trade Review 1943" pages 305-306. (Published in October 1943)

Malted oats? Hang on, didn't one of the other articles say malting oats wasn't allowed because it was a waste of malting labour? They must have changed their minds.

Brewery piping and beer ageing ca 1885

Someone asked the other day about the pipes in breweries. What were they made from? I've just found the answer.

"Mains for beer and wort should be always made of tinned copper pipe, with gun metal flanges and caps, and all T pieces should be formed of tinned sheet copper, with smooth surfaces and easy throats. Water pipes may be made of cast or wrought iron, but lead pipes are not adapted for brewery use, and should be entirely excluded from breweries."
Source: "A systematic handbook of practical brewing", by E.R. Southby, 1885, page 24.

 I also found this about ageing and storing beer:

"The methods of storing beer in different parts of the United Kingdom vary considerably. In Burton the beer is run into the trade casks, and these are often stacked in the open during the winter months, and only placed under cover as the season advances. In other localities the trade casks full of stock beer are stored in underground cellars, where a very uniform temperature is maintained. Of these two plans, the former answers well if the beer is sound and good enough to stand it, but if there is any doubt on this point the latter plan must of course be adopted. Then again, black beers and old ales are frequently stored in vats, and vatting greatly improves the quality of these varieties of malt liquor." (Source: "A systematic handbook of practical brewing", by E.R. Southby, 1885, page 143.)

That's it for today. Though there's more to come from Southby. If you can stay awake.

New beer styles

New styles, eh. Dontcha just love 'em? I know I do. But I'mn not talking about Black IPA or some other such oxymoronic rubbish. No, indeed. It's old new styles that catch my attention.

Old new styles? What am I talking about? And I'm the one accusing others of oxymoronicity. Just bear with me a bit. I may eventually stumble into sensible land and ask for directions. There's an idea slowly forming from the fog that usually fills my head. What was it again? I think I can just make out its shape over there  . . . .

Old new styles. I could also call them forgotten styles. Or the styles Michael Jackson missed. Burton, AK, Double Brown. Beers that not only were around for decades in the past, but have clung on as tattered remnants to this day. Vital links in the evolutionary chain of styles whose place in history has been forgotten and ignored.

It's all Michael Jackson's fault. Or rather the laziness of his successors. They didn't bother looking themselves and adopted wholesale his analysis of British beer styles. Time for this historic wrong to be righted. But not in this post. Because I want to discuss another new style I've just spotted.

Ale 4d. Great name, isn't it? Fourpenny Ale is probably snappier. Lloyd George's lovechild, it was the result of WW I brewing restrictions. Low-gravity Mild. That's what I've called until now. Until I took a bit closer look at Barclay Perkins Ale 4d. Now I'm not so sure.

Take a look and see what you make of it. I've included Barclay Perkins X Mild and Whitbread Porter for purposes of comparison:

Barclay Perkins Ale 4d
Date	18th Sep	11th Oct	22nd Nov	27th Dec	10th Jan	3rd Jul	24th Feb
Year	1918	1918	1918	1918	1919	1919	1919
Brewer	Barclay Perkins	Barclay Perkins	Barclay Perkins	Barclay Perkins	Barclay Perkins	Barclay Perkins	Whitbread
Beer	Ale 4d	Ale 4d	Ale 4d	Ale 4d	Ale 4d	X	P
Style	Mild	Mild	Mild	Mild	Mild	Mild	Porter
OG	1025.8	1025.7	1025.6	1025.9	1025.7	1039.4	1042.9
FG	1006.6	1006.4	1006.4	1006.1	1006.4	1009.4	1012.0
ABV	2.53	2.56	2.54	2.62	2.56	3.97	4.09
App. Attenuation	74.23%	75.21%	75.11%	76.47%	75.21%	76.10%	72.05%
lbs hops/ qtr	6.01	5.50	4.50	4.98	4.97	6.96	7.60
hops lb/brl	0.67	0.63	0.51	0.56	0.55	1.11	1.45
pale malt	63.06%	58.74%	58.84%	56.29%	62.58%	64.12%	64.32%
brown malt	6.54%	5.63%	5.63%	5.45%	7.13%	0.00%	11.05%
black malt	0.93%	0.94%	1.41%	1.36%	1.34%	0.00%	8.91%
amber malt	8.58%	7.38%	7.39%	7.15%	9.93%	10.45%	0.00%
crystal malt	5.17%	4.67%	4.16%	4.52%	0.00%	3.71%	0.00%
no. 3 sugar	0.00%	7.75%	6.90%	7.51%	5.73%	6.16%	15.71%
caramel	0.27%	0.27%	0.16%	0.21%	0.20%	0.14%	0.00%
glucose	10.30%	6.89%	8.62%	10.01%	7.36%	0.00%	0.00%
other sugar	5.15%	7.75%	6.90%	7.51%	5.73%	6.93%	0.00%
flaked maize	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	8.47%	0.00%
Source:  Whitbread and Barclay Perkins brewing records held at the London Metropolitan Library

See how Ale 4d contains brown, black and amber malts? Quite different to the grist of the normal X Mild. You know what it looks like to me? Something halfway between Dark Mild and Porter. Morter, you could call it. Or Pold. Unless, of course, you prefer Fourpenny Ale.

Next: I make the case for AK.

Temperance logic

The lack of analytical powers amongst those with an ideological opposition to alcohol is nothing new. In fact, an ability to ignore any evidence that doesn't fit their pre-formed views is a defining feature of temperance thinking across the centuries.

The text below recounts an encounter between Sydney Nevile* and some temperance thinkers during WW I.
 .

"I remember Lord Astor once introducing a deputation representing various temperance organizations, including many clergy of different cloth. In view of Monmouthshire's geographical position and industrial relationship with Wales, it had been decided to extend the Welsh law of Sunday closing to cover this adjacent English county. Naturally the temperance movement welcomed this decision, and the suggestion they now wished to make to the Central Control Board was that the Sunday closing regulation should be extended to the whole of the country. They urged d'Abernon and the Control Board to consider this on the ground that if industrial efficiency had increased in Monmouth, nation-wide Sunday closing would result in a similar increase in efficiency everywhere. D'Abernon promised to give the matter his full consideration, and expressed sympathy with their object. He then asked me if I had anything to say. So far as I am aware, none of the deputation, except Astor, knew who I was; they only regarded me with some respect as a member of the Board. I asked a question they had not expected. If, I said, the Board made investigations and found that other districts where public houses were open on Sundays had given evidence of greater increase in efficiency than Monmouth, would they regard that as a good reason for re-opening public houses on Sundays in Monmouth and, indeed, for extending Sunday opening to Wales? This mild inquiry was given a shocked and almost venomous reception, so Astor hastily intervened to say it was a difficult question and would require careful consideration. At this point the deputation withdrew."
"Seventy Rolling Years", by Sydney Nevile, 1958, page 107.

Depressingly, this could have happened yesterday. 



* Sydney Nevile was a fascinationg character who worked in the brewing industry for more than 70 years, starting in 1886. During WW I he worked for a brewer at Brandon's, a small London brewery, but was also a member of the Central Control Board, a body which controlled many aspects of the brewing trade.

Wouldn't that label make a great sign for the Gunmakers?

Let's Brew Wednesday - 1918 Barclay Perkins GA

Government Ale? What an inspiring name for a beer. Sort of makes it sound official, doesn't it? As if the government has somehow approved it.

Government Ale (a name later forbidden by the government) was the result of the first set of government controls on the gravity and strength of beer, introduced in 1917. It was brewed within specified gravity bands (pretty low) and sold at a controlled price. The intention was to ensure more beer was brewed from the same quantity of raw materials and keep down the price to stop unrest amongst the working class. It doesn't seem to have quite worked out as planned, due to resistance from brewers and publicans.

Stylistically, it was like a lower-gravity X-Ale and was often party-gyled with it. When government restrictions on brewing were abolished, Government Ale didn't disappear. Most breweries continued to brew a beer of around 1030º, usually called just Ale. It finally vanished only when the gravity of X Ale dropped to around 1027-1030º at the end of WW II.

The biggest difference between the grist of GA/MA and X Ale was the use of dark malt. Most versions of MA contained 7 to 11% brown malt, though occasionally crystal malt was used instead. That's enough to make the beer taste significantly different from a beer brewed from just pale malt and dark sugar. Either they had more brown malt than they knew what to do with or they were trying to compensate for the fall in gravity. Whitbread also used brown malt in their price-controlled Milds.

Here's one of the government orders, in the slim chance that you're interested.:

THE INTOXICATING LIQUOR (OUTPUT AND DELIVERY) ORDER No. 3, 1917. DATED OCTOBER 15, 1917.

1917. No. 1059:

In exercise of the powers conferred upon him by the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and of all other powers enabling him in that behalf, the Food Controller hereby orders as follows:

1. During the quarter commencing on the 1st October, 1917 (hereinafter referred to as the current quarter) the maximum barrelage which a brewer for sale is authorised to brew under the Intoxicating Liquor (Output and Delivery) Order, 1917 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Order) shall be increased.

(a) By twenty per cent, if he gives such notice and .complies with such conditions as are hereinafter mentioned and such increase is, in this Order, referred to as the twenty per cent, increase ; and

(b) By such further amount, if any, as in his case may be authorised by licence of the Food Controller if he complies with the conditions subject to which such a licence is granted, and the increase authorised by such licence is hereinafter called the licensed increase: Provided that the aggregate amount of the licensed increases shall not exceed such an amount as with the aggregate amount of the twenty percent, increases will increase the aggregate barrelage to be brewed by all brewers for sale in the current quarter by more than thirty-three and one-third per cent.

2. A brewer for sale shall be authorised to brew in the current quarter the twenty per cent, increase if he gives notice to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioners) on or before the 20th October, 1917, that he accepts and will comply with the conditions subject to which the twenty per cent, increase is authorised by this Order, and such brewer is hereinafter referred to as an accepting brewer.

3. The conditions subject to which the twenty per cent, increase is authorised are the following :

(a) One-half of the total amount of beer brewed by the accepting -brewer in the current quarter (exclusive of the licensed increase) shall be brewed and delivered out of his brewery at a gravity not exceeding an original gravity of 1042º :

(b) The remaining half of the beer brewed (exclusive of the licensed increase) shall be brewed at an average original gravity not exceeding the average original gravity of the total beer brewed at his brewery during the quarter commencing on the 1st October, 1916:

(c) In the month of October not more than one-third and in the months of October and November not more than two-thirds of the total amount of beer which the brewer is entitled to brew during the current quarter (exclusive of the licensed increase) shall be delivered out of his brewery :

And it shall be the duty of every accepting brewer to comply with such conditions.

4. The additional barrelage authorised to be brewed by this Order and by licences under this Order shall not be taken into account in reckoning the ten million barrels referred to in sub-section (2) of Clause 1 of the principal Order. Principal Order.

5. The same provision shall be applicable in relation to the Contracts, effect of this Order on contracts as is applicable in relation to the effect of the Output of Beer (Restriction) Act, 1916, on contracts under Section 4 of that Act.

6. The following provisions shall apply with respect to certificates available for the current quarter granted or to be granted to a licence holder:

(a) Except under the authority of the Food Controller a certificate granted by an accepting brewer shall not during the current quarter be used to transfer barrelage to a person who is not an accepting brewer.

(b) The number of standard barrels which a licence holder may obtain from an accepting brewer under a certificate shall be increased by 20 per cent.

(c) An accepting brewer who has undertaken to supply the licence holder with beer under a certificate shall not supply more than one-half of such beer at a gravity exceeding an original gravity of 1042º.

(d) This clause shall apply to persons having the same rights as licence holders in the same way as it applies to licence holders.

7. If any question shall arise under this Order as to the average Gravity of original gravity of beer such question shall be determined by the beer Commissioners.

8. Every accepting brewer shall keep such records as to gravity Records, and amount of beer brewed and delivered and other matters as are requisite to determine whether or not the provisions of this Order are being complied with, and all such records and documents
connected therewith shall at all times be open to the inspection of the Food Controller and of the Commissioners.

9.
(a) No account shall be taken of any surplus barrelage accrued since the 1st April, 1917, for the purpose of computing the increase permitted by Clause 1 of this Order.

(b) In the case of a brewer who was an accepting brewer within the meaning of the Intoxicating Liquor (Output and Delivery) Order (No. 2), 1917 such surplus barrelage may except in such cases as the Food Controller otherwise directs, only be brewed subject to the conditions applicable under conditions (a) and (b) of clause 3 of this Order to the beer therein referred to.

10. Infringements of this Order are summary offences against the Defence of the Realm Regulations.

11. This Order may be cited as the Intoxicating Liquor (Output and Delivery) Order No. 3, 1917, and should be read as one with the principal Order.

"Food Supply Manual October 1917", pages 78-80


I think it's time to pass you over to Kristen's tender care . . . . . .

Barclay Perkins - 1918 - GA
General info: Ah Government ale…the sadward turn towards the low gravity milds of the generations to come. To be distinguished between Government cheese or any kind of government pension service. This was is a low-gravity mild that was stipulated to cost 4d. Low gravity, low hops, low everything. The attenuation is through the roof and with nearly a third of the beer coming from either darker malts or dark brewing sugars there is plenty of dark fruity character.
Beer Specifics			Recipe by percentages
Gravity (OG)	1.035		67.5% English pale			7.1% Cane Sugar
Gravity (FG)	1.003		8.6% Amber malt			7.9% No3 Invert
ABV	4.27%		4.1% Brown malt			0.8% Caramel colorant
Apparent attenuation	91.43%		4.1% Crystal 75L
Real attenuation	74.90%
IBU	14.9		Mash	90min@152°F		0.76qt/lb
SRM	21.1			90min@66.7°C		1.59L/kg
EBC	55.9
			Boil	120 min
	Homebrew @ 70%				Craft @ 80%
Grist	5gal		19L		10bbl		10hl
English pale	4.52	lb	2.059	kg	245.36	lb	94.80	kg
Amber malt	0.58	lb	0.262	kg	31.21	lb	12.06	kg
Brown malt	0.27	lb	0.124	kg	14.76	lb	5.70	kg
Crystal 75L	0.27	lb	0.124	kg	14.76	lb	5.70	kg
Cane Sugar	0.48	lb	0.217	kg	25.83	lb	9.98	kg
No3 Invert	0.53	lb	0.241	kg	28.70	lb	11.09	kg
Caramel colorant	0.85	oz	0.385	kg	2.87	lb	1.11	kg
					363.48052
Hops
Goldings 4.5% 120min	0.71	oz	20.1	g	44.02	oz	1.064	kg
Fermentation	62°F /16.7°C
Yeast	Safale S04
	WLP007 Dry English ale
	Wyeast 1099 Whitbred ale
Tasting Notes: Toasted bread crusts, some cocoa and lots of dark sugar plum fairies dancing around. A bit astringent in the middle that really accentuates the ridiculously drying finish.  Quite a bit of caramel colour to add nearly half of all colour.

Ingredients and technique

Grist & such

For such a low gravity mild there was an aweful lot of malts and sugars full of character. Two-thirds of this beer was made up by pale malt. The rest came from brown, amber and crystal malts and dark brewing sugars. All the malt was of locale origin and the brewing sugars from the usual suspects of Garton and Martineau.

Hops

There were hops…a little anyway. Averaged 3 years old and had notes indicating they were reducing the hopping level by about 15% from previous recipes. As with other low gravity mids there was only a single hop addition at the beginning of the boil. No late hopping nor dry hopping. This was beer making on a budget!

Mash & Boil

A moderately high mash would have giving a touch more mouthfeel keeping this beer from being even dryer than it turn out. The brown malt and No3 invert would have added a touch more body but a lot more flavor. This beer was boiled for 2 hours which was not very common for the time as time is very much money.

Fermentation, Conditioning & Serving

A cool fermentation temp would have ensured a good amount of fruity character but all that would not make up for the beer being completely fermented in two days. No aging. No standing on ceremony. Condition to 2 vol and drink.

Gyling & Blending

A three gyle approach was made with this beer. Doughing in very tight, stepping up the mash temp and then the sparge. The sugar was split between the  first two gyles were by 2/3rds and 1/3^rd, respectively. Hops were done on the per bbl basis. The last gyle was only 1.010 and no hops were added. Each gyle was blended equaling creating one single beer. For this recipe, one can make the beer without the gyle will little difference in final product.

Name	5gal	19L	10bbl	10hL
G1 - vol	1.88	7.13	3.75	3.75
G1 - grav	1.058	1.058	1.058	1.058
G1 - BU	19	19	19	19
G2 - vol	1.26	4.78	2.52	2.52
G2 - grav	1.036	1.036	1.036	1.036
G2 - BU	23	23	23	23
G3 - vol	1.86	7.09	3.73	3.73
G3 - grav	1.010	1.010	1.010	1.010
G3 - BU	0	0	0	0
Hopping	0.3oz/gal	2.26g/L	0.59lb/bbl	0.23kg/hL
Totals	OG 1.035	FG 1.003	BU 13	Abv 4.2%

Barclay Perkins fermenters (ca 1900)

As promised, Barclay Perkins fermentation details.

First, RDP (a Porter of some sort) from 1899:

This looks pretty straightforward to me. No sign of dropping. Then fined and racked at the end.



Next X Ale from 1906:

 

 This more complicated. The three entries at the very top are of interest:

Slates 6 m 6 4.8 @ 62 1/2
Wood Skim 6 m 8 4.6 @ 63
Cop. do 6 m 10 4.6 @ 63 1/2

6 m 6 = 6th 6 AM [date and time]
4.8, 4.6 = gravity in pounds per barrel [attenuation of the wort]
@ 62 1/2 = 62.5º F [temperature of wort]

I'd be interested in what you make of that. I won't influence you with my opinion.



And finally XLK from 1919:

 

Here you can see the use of the attemperator. "Liquor on" means running cooled water through the attemperator pipes. The bit on the bottom right is informative. It gives the numbers of the fermenting vessels followed by SB's, SK Wood, SK Copper. What do you reckon that means?

Here's another I've just found which clarifies some points:

If you look in the bottom right hand corner you can see that two different actions were carried out on Trade XLK. FV numbers 6 and 22 were cleansed, FV 19 skimmed. Which implies that the SB FV's weren't fitted with skimming parachutes.


I wonder if there are any plans of the brewery in the archive?